Case law

McVay v. Sisters of Mercy Health System

399 F.3d 904 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Mar 4, 2005

It further found that Sears was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did “ ‘not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” McVay v. … Qualified immunity shields .government officials from civil liability where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Kevin Lee Stevens v. Gerald Corbell

832 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Jan 22, 1988

later determined to have been illegal, does not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have then known. … In such cases the officer can gain immunity by showing that since the legal right in question was not clearly established at the time of his actions, he could not reasonably be expected to have known that his conduct was

Wilson v. Schillinger

761 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · May 1, 1985

The Supreme Court has extended the application of the Harlow “clearly established rights” standard for qualified immunity to cases, such as this one, in which defendants are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) for alleged … Thus, to avoid the recovery-preclusive effects of qualified immunity, plaintiff must have proven that defendants had reason to know they were violating plaintiffs clearly established equal protection rights by enforcing Directive

Habiger v. City of Fargo

80 F.3d 289 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Apr 4, 1996

First, to withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, a civil rights plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established … Second, Habiger had a clearly established right under the Fourth Amendment not to be arrested unless there was probable cause for his arrest.

Lux v. Hansen

886 F.2d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

A government official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity unless he has violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … We held that because removing the children from their homes and placing them in temporary foster care did not violate any clearly established legal standards, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Rankin v. Klevenhagen

5 F.3d 103 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Oct 18, 1993

First, we determine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). … "Whether a defendant asserting qualified immunity may be personally liable turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the defendant's actions assessed in light of clearly established law." Mouille v.

Green v. Bauvi

46 F.3d 189 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Jan 25, 1995

immunity. 23 Public officials enjoy a qualified immunity from suits for damages "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Assuming that, in whatever circumstances are at issue, the inmate's right to a hearing within a reasonable time was clearly established at the time of his confinement, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity if it

Eric Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas

866 F.3d 698 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Aug 9, 2017

The district court determined that the officers had not violated clearly established law and were thus entitled to qualified immunity. … Once an official pleads qualified immunity, “the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who.must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

Larry U. Josey Harry H. Lloyd Robert Gibson v. William Salisbury, Leonard Riccinto the City of Detroit

14 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 18, 1993

He discovered evidence of crack cocaine and money that clearly supported Riccinto's report to him. 3 20 We find no basis for denying Salisbury's claim of qualified immunity under these circumstances. … CITY OF DETROIT 21 The City of Detroit is not before us on any claim of good faith or qualified immunity as are the individual defendants in this appeal.

Don Powers v. Northside Independent Sch Dis

951 F.3d 298 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Feb 26, 2020

As superintendent, Woods is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under § 1983 unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that Woods’ actions violated clearly established constitutional law. See Salas v. … “The second prong of the qualified immunity test is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident; and, if so, whether

Meadows v. Enyeart

627 F. App'x 496 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Oct 1, 2015

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials performing discretionary functions ... generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … After a defendant raises a qualified-immunity defense, the burden. shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the government official violated a right that was so clearly established “that every ‘reasonable official would

Wilson v. Morgan

54 F. App'x 195 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Dec 17, 2002

violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, was the right clearly established? … Because the facts alleged show the officers’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim.

Cole v. Ruidoso Municipal Schools

947 F.2d 903 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Oct 29, 1991

On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim because New Mexico law did not clearly establish that the failure to renew 1 Plaintiff’s … A government official is entitled to immunity from liability if the official’s conduct as alleged in the complaint did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Young v. County Of Fulton

160 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Nov 16, 1998

established at the time of the events in this case. 13 Government agents enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct "did not violate clearly established rights of which … qualified immunity.

Silberstein v. City of Dayton

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Mar 3, 2006

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person in the official’s position … Whether Silberstein’s First Amendment rights were clearly established Having found that no First Amendment violation occurred, we need not address the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis

Soriano v. Town of Cicero

521 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2013

not address qualified immunity in appellate brief). … Soriano’s failure to argue that the defendants should not receive qualified immunity is significant because Soriano, as the plaintiff, has the burden of establishing that the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional

Araceli Rodriguez v. Lonnie Swartz

899 F.3d 719 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Aug 7, 2018

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity protects public officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which 2 Rodriguez … Instead, Swartz lacks immunity only if J.A.’s Fourth Amendment right was “clearly established” when he was shot and killed.40 A right is “clearly established” when it is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official

Estate of Jason Thomson v. Thomas Behn

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2026

claims was appropriate because the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … We review an officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity de novo, asking whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time and under the circum- stances presented. Beaman v.

Jones Jr. v. Preuit & Mauldin

822 F.2d 998 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

In the context of deciding whether these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, we are deciding whether or not their actions were clearly unconstitutional. … clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 14 They are thus entitled to immunity from damages insofar as the seizure of Mr.

Hynson ex rel. Hynson v. City of Chester

864 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Dec 23, 1988

This is the essence of the constitutional right which the plaintiffs must show was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation in order to negate the police officers’ qualified immunity. B. … Hynson’s clearly established right to equal protection.